Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- EQUIVOCATION
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:27:19 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c9cc66edd45c49000a21a2db750b6527d1823f68@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <38fdfb81e98cbb31d6dfffddbd5a82eff984e496@i2pn2.org>
 <vg5lk5$3s9mh$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba125243c8b842c626957957dadff9e89c84a873@i2pn2.org>
 <vg64mh$3v3m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <750be82de0bb525580577c5ed9ce33a04ad369be@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6glu$1ejv$1@dont-email.me>
 <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6hv7$1mc6$1@dont-email.me>
 <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6jtk$1uqc$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c832418f6eb4f2894105bf227b91d3f9feff5e4@i2pn2.org>
 <vg844n$dri5$2@dont-email.me>
 <d4575c5f9a951709f885c9fad687a7ab218bd616@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8seg$i9jj$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="814603"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg8seg$i9jj$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5301
Lines: 70

On 11/3/24 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 4:04 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 09:16:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/3/2024 8:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 02 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> H that does abort and return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>      when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized"
>>>>>>>>>>>      version of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion.
>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking
>>>>>>>>>> at the input it was given.
>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH is
>>>>>>>>> supposed to predict the behavior of the infinite emulation on the
>>>>>>>>> basis of its finite emulation.
>>>> LLMs literally string words they have previously seen together.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the
>>>>>>>> actual machine.
>>>>>>> No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>>> machine for any non-terminating inputs.
>>>> Haha what? It absolutely is. For a nonterminating input a halting
>>>> decider must return that it doesn't halt.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a
>>>>>> semantic property.
>>>>> The actual behavior specified by the finite string input to HHH does
>>>>> include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD such that this DD *not some
>>>>> other DDD somewhere else*
>>>> Especially not some DDD that calls a non-aborting simulator HHH1.
>>> *HHH1 has identical source code to HHH*
>> Ok great, let's just exchange them then. How does HHH1 simulate
>> EEE(){HHH1(EEE);} and FFF(){HHH(DDD);}?
>>
>>> DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own return instruction.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES REACH its own return instruction.
>> Hm, the program under test is the same here. The difference must be in
>> the testing program.
>>
> 
> It is the fact that in all of the conventional HP proofs
> the input does call its own decider. Maybe you didn't
> know that?
> 

No, but the family you are thinking of has the program the input 
represents call the decider it is designed to foil. NOT "its own" as it 
doesn't "own" that decider, so when you hypothosize changing that 
decider to one that doesn't abort, the input still calls the one that does.

That is ONE SPECIFIC program, that doesn't change if we give this to a 
different decider, like you hypothitical non-aborting version.

A given input only prove ONE decider wrong, but we show we can build 
such an input for ANY decider, these EVERY decider has an input it gets 
wrong.

This sophistication seems beyond your logical processing ability.